From: peter steenkiste
Subject: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <1327@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
I am looking for the most recent Gabriel benchmark results.
I most interested in the results for the Symbolics and
TI Explorer 2, but results for other architectures are
also welcome.

Does anybody have such numbers or can anybody tell me where
I can get them?

Thank you,  Peter Steenkiste
Carnegie Mellon University
···@sam.cs.cmu.edu
From: ···@alice.UUCP
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <7799@alice.UUCP>
In article <····@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> ···@N.SP.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP writes:
>I am looking for the most recent Gabriel benchmark results.
>Does anybody have such numbers or can anybody tell me where I can get them?
>
>Thank you,  Peter Steenkiste

Please post this information!  I'm also interested in seeing the benchmarks
(also interesting would be "correct" translations of the benchmarks to
Scheme; I'm rolling my own, but I'm not sufficiently fluent to believe I've
done them correctly).

	Marty Shannon
	AT&T Bell Labs
	Liberty Corner, NJ
From: Jim Sims
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <283@mithras>
I've seen the Gabriel benchmarks and I've seen the results on several machines
I've also seen tests of applications run on multiple machines (see below).
The ONLY conclusion you can draw from ANY - repeat ANY benchmark of this sort
is a ballpark figure. Gabriel would tell you this, I believe. The problem
I see with the Gabriel LISP benchmarks is that they don't Garbage Collect or
Page significantly (does your code??).


Application - Scheduling Hubble Space Telescope

machine        notes                          relative rating
-------------------------------------------------------------
TI Exploder     plain jane			1.0
TI Exploder II  new box				3.5
Slimebolics	36xx?				3.0
MAC II		Allegro LISP			.75
MAC II + LISP CHIP   hah! fooled yah - it crashed and burned when we tried to
			do a directory on the LISP side of the fence


(following are unsubstantiated "rumors")

Application - Expert Systems Tools

machine		notes				relative rating
---------------------------------------------------------------
vaxstation xxxx					3
Slimebolics 36xx				3
TI Exploder II					3.5
SUNN 3/260					3

Basically all this stuff says is that the APPLICATION makes or breaks the
system, and if you want to do benchmarks, run the code you plan to use -
real applications - not what someone else thinks is a godd "general purpose"
mixture of example code.


						happy LISPing
-- 
    Jim Sims     Space Telescope Science Institute  Baltimore, MD 21218
    UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    SPAN:  {SCIVAX,KEPLER}::SIMS
    ARPA:  ····@stsci.edu
From: Sean Hayes
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <1350012@otter.hple.hp.com>
>I am looking for the most recent Gabriel benchmark results.

This is the second time this week I have heard these mentioned, so at the risk
of sounding ignorant (which of course I am :-)

Could someone tell me what the Gabriel benchmarks are and how to obtain them.
(Send sources if you can) I would like to use them to test some functional language
compilers. Is this appropriate?

  _________________________________________________________________________
 |Sean Hayes,          Hewlett Packard Laboratories,      Bristol,  England|
 |net: ···@hplb.uucp   ··········@hplabs.HP.COM       ..!mcvax!ukc!hplb!esh|
From: ········@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <4400001@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu>
Gabriel Benchmark Suite tested on:
  IBM RT PC
  Explorer 2
  Explorer 1
  SUN 3/160
(all times are in seconds)

			RT	Exp1	Exp2	SUN
			----	----	----	----
Boyer:			41.77	43.57	16.72	25.2
Browse:			33.33	45.98	23.8	25.86
CTAK:			3.1	3.83	.82	1.02
Dderiv:			12.2	12.32	5.73	10.32
Deriv:			10.4	12.23	3.62	5.76
Destructive:		3.9	4.08	.95	4.8
Div-iter:		4.3	4.08	.95	.68
Div-rec:		4.7	7.52	2.08	1.24
FFT:			288.37	23.26	6.91	78.82
Fprint:			2.0	17.53	1.47	.72
Fread:			5.0	11.81	2.22	2.66
Frpoly 2:r=x+y+z+1:	0.0	0.01	0.0	0.0
Frpoly 2:r2=1000r:	0.1	0.014	0.003	0.02
Frpoly 2:r3=r:		0.0	0.014	0.003	0.02
Frpoly 5:r=x+y+z+1:	0.1	0.096	0.022	0.02
Frpoly 5:r2=1000r:	0.4	0.148	0.039	0.2
Frpoly 5:r3=r:		0.7	0.155	0.036	0.06
Frpoly 10:r=x+y+z+1:	0.8	1.264	0.215	0.28
Frpoly 10:r2=1000r:	6.2	1.658	0.437	2.04
Frpoly 10:r3=r:		5.9	1.424	0.337	0.58
Frpoly 15:r=x+y+z+1:	6.7	6.279	1.433	2.44
Frpoly 15:r2=1000r:	75.07	12.996	3.704	28.48
Frpoly 15:r3=r:		37.7	8.339	2.63	6.8
Puzzle:			213.93	26.46	5.92	82.46
STAK:			3.7	5.21	1.7	1.18
TAK:			1.1	1.73	0.296	0.3
TAKL:			3.5	16.99	3.60	1.26
TAKR:			1.3	1.72	0.304	0.46
Tprint:			5.0	18.46	3.97	1.14	
Traverse-init:		13.87	20.66	4.39	4.16
Traverse:		66.5	125.02	32.1	30.5
Triangle:		--	--	75.298	598.78

Disclaimer:  All times are guaranteed to be approximate.
From: ········@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <4400002@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu>
Minor (?) mistake in the previous note: The SUN is really a 3/280.
Sorry.

Joel
From: ········@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Gabriel benchmark results
Date: 
Message-ID: <4400003@eliot.cs.uiuc.edu>
Ok, ok.
For the previous benchmark results I was running Lucid Lisp on both
the RT and the SUN.  It was version 1.0.1 on the RT and version 
2.0.2 on the SUN.  The SUN has a floating point chip.

As for compiler options, safety levels, type declarations, etc.  I
simply ran the benchmark suite.  I have yet to take a thorough look
at the programs to see what they are doing (I have a basic idea).
I'm making the assumption that there are a lot of people out there
that know more about this than I.

Joel
comp.lang.lisp / 1988 / apr